Before photography, we knew something was truthful because someone trustworthy vouched for it.

Now that photos and videos can be faked, we'll have to go back to the older system.

It was always easy to fake photos too. Just organize the scene, or selectively frame what you want. There is no such thing as any piece of media you can trust.

The construction workers having lunch on the girder in that famous photo were in fact about four feet above a safety platform; it's a masterpiece of framing and cropping. (Ironically the photographer was standing on a girder out over a hundred stories of nothing).

Although I do use the dead internet, I didn't see much of "fake news" like that...

Ah yes the good old days of witch trials and pogroms.

I am no big fan of AI but misinformation is a tale as old as time.

Depends. When millions are on the line between companies, people are surprisingly willing to take a hand-created excel file as 'proof'. For example: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/tricolors-excel-g...

If there’s anything I would want to run to verify, I ask the author to add a unit test. Generally, the existing CI test + new tests in the PR having run successfully is enough. I might pull and run it if I am not sure whether a particular edge case is handled.

Reviewers wanting to pull and run many PRs makes me think your automated tests need improvement.

In fact ‘computer’ used to be a job description: a person who computes.

Yes, definitely. And "nice" used to mean "insignificant". But they don't have those meanings now.

Aren’t “Big Life Insurance” and “Big Annuity” pretty much the same companies?

They are, they're basically mathematical inverses of the same product.

Big Annuity can charge you more, in fact, if it has reason to believe you're going to live unusually long, so playing the GLP-1 dance with them would only be profitable in reverse. Pretend to be the unhealthiest person on the planet, lock in an annuity, then get on the drip stat.

I think the difference is people generally get Life Insurance when they are younger (I'm guessing frequently when they have kids, that is when I got it at least) but get Annuities when they are a senior. I don't know anyone my age who is purchasing an annuity now, though I suppose there must be someone who would be willing to sell it.

I think the deal would have to be very sweet for eg a 30 year old like yours truly to forgo 35 years of index fund gains to pick up an annuity instead. That's also 35 years where the annuity firm itself night shutter its doors - a risky play, but right for the right price.

A quick search says Hinge charges a monthly subscription, is that not correct?

One of Hinge's marketing messages is something along the line of "The app you're meant to delete."

Marketing message !== company’s economic incentive.

Oh 100%. My understanding is that they still haven't caved to their economic incentive and that it's such a flooded market that they actually find it a differentiator. But yeah no one should trust dating apps to be honest for any amount of time.

The NDP party does not want a Conservative landslide government either, regardless of Mr. Singh’s pension.

This still leaves open ‘buy, don’t borrow, die’ as a way for the dynastically wealthy to opt out of paying capital gains tax.

I think the sensible option is making death a taxable event, rather than borrowing (with perhaps exceptions for the family farm, but not for the family billion dollar business).

And the second best solution is eliminating the step-up basis, which without deemed disposition at death is just a free gift of capital gains tax rebates to heirs of the most wealthy.

Or another way to think of it: your estate has to settle all outstanding tax bills after your death, including the gains in assets that have remained untaxes your whole life.

Death already is a taxable event though?

C++ gives both ‘map’ and ‘unordered_map’, and in my experience idiomatic C++ uses unordered_map unless you actually need a tree.

Actually generally the legal system would decide that, not “the market”.

I.e. investors have assigned roughly zero probability to CrowdStrike bearing the full cost of this incident, and set the market price accordingly.